> -----Original Message----- > From: HLS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of hector > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:06 AM > To: Ian Eiloart > Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; Daniel Black; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the > receiving side > > +1 and that is a very critical point for product engineers especially > when there new legal terms like "domain responsibility" peppered > throughout the documents. This is just asking for trouble one way or > another. That alone can scare people away (raises the barrier to > adoption). > > POLICY provides indemnification for receivers with a clear DOMAIN > publication for its expectation for signatures.
I don't think such a claim holds any weight unless it's written down in a law book somewhere. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that's Google's position. > In effect, ADSP (LEVINE) is saying: > > This is possible useful for MDA to use. > But MTA (intermediary signers) can ignore it. > > I don't think that is sound engineering. Until someone proposes a way to force all MTAs, including legacy ones, to pay attention to ADSP, all of this recent hysteria about ADSP is little more than academic. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
